Speaker 1: I have a question for you, Jason fire Away. You know,
Speaker 1: sometimes when I talk to people after decades in prison,
Speaker 1: twenty thirty going on forty something years, how many people
Speaker 1: have you experienced that do have such a strong support system,
Speaker 1: like they still have their parents, brothers, sisters, connected with
Speaker 1: their children that they might have had before present. Well,
Speaker 1: I don't know the percentage, but I can tell you this,
Speaker 1: For the people that do, it's a literal lifeline. Just
Speaker 1: knowing that there's people out there that love you, that
Speaker 1: care about you, that are concerned for your well being. Um,
Speaker 1: it can be literally the thing that saves people, and
Speaker 1: it can be the thing that helps to free them.
Speaker 1: It's like a gaping hole. It is if his family
Speaker 1: has been conserrated along with him. In other words, we're
Speaker 1: doing a time with him. From love of for good
Speaker 1: is wrongful conviction with Maggie Freeling today Brian Parnell. On August,
Speaker 1: Konstantinos Boullius, also known as Gus, finished closing up his
Speaker 1: two pizza shops in the suburbs of Philadelphia. He went
Speaker 1: home to his wife, Daphne, and two children. Sometime later
Speaker 1: that night, Daphne woke up to a loud bang. She
Speaker 1: found Gus lying on the floor, shot in the back.
Speaker 1: Daphne and her children tried to help and called nine one.
Speaker 1: Gus was taken to the hospital, but by the time
Speaker 1: he arrived it was too late. Gus Bullius was gone.
Speaker 1: Responding officers took note of evidence at the scene, collecting
Speaker 1: hair samples and several partial fingerprints, but after searching the house,
Speaker 1: detectives decided, even with nothing actually taken from the home,
Speaker 1: that it was robbery gone wrong. Detective Kenneth Beam ran
Speaker 1: the prince through databases in Pennsylvania and surrounding states, but
Speaker 1: no match turned up. Eventually, the case went cold. Four
Speaker 1: years later, Detective Beam took the prince to the FBI
Speaker 1: to run them through their national fingerprint system, and suddenly
Speaker 1: he had a suspect, twenty nine year old Brian Parnell.
Speaker 1: Despite having multiple alibi witnesses, Brian was arrested for murder
Speaker 1: on September two. That was a shock. I was really
Speaker 1: in shock, like, oh my god, you know, this is like,
Speaker 1: oh man, I still feel the emotions. I mean, talking
Speaker 1: about it right now, it's making me tear up because
Speaker 1: I don't know if you ever been accused of something
Speaker 1: that you know you didn't do no affiliation with and
Speaker 1: I've been living this nightmare for going into my twenty
Speaker 1: or a year. Brian Parnell was born in Philadelphia on
Speaker 1: Valentine's Day, nineteen seventy two, to Karin and DeAndre Parnell.
Speaker 1: Brian Parnell is a very fun, loving kind of guy.
Speaker 1: He's a family very family orientated above all. That's how
Speaker 1: Brian describes himself. He grew up in a large, loving family.
Speaker 1: His father was a maleman and his mother was a
Speaker 1: federal law enforcement officer. His parents divorced when he was little,
Speaker 1: but they worked hard to maintain family harmony. And I
Speaker 1: was blessed with very very beautiful parents, not just you know,
Speaker 1: my biological parents, but also my stepparents. Even though my
Speaker 1: dad and my mom went through whatever they went through,
Speaker 1: they never reflected that on us. They made sure we
Speaker 1: were in, you know, a part of each other's lives.
Speaker 1: Because my two younger sisters they have a different mother
Speaker 1: than I do. They made sure we all knew we
Speaker 1: are you know each other and interact with each other.
Speaker 1: So when I say that we were rooted in love,
Speaker 1: I'm very rooted in love. Bryan's sister Tamera remembers this
Speaker 1: time fondly. Bryant was always doing something. He had like dogs,
Speaker 1: growing up, reptiles, frogs, m fish. He was He was
Speaker 1: your normal child. But in being your normal child, he
Speaker 1: was very caring and concerned. He was compassionate. He had
Speaker 1: like a imagination that was just out of this world.
Speaker 1: My mother brought him this red outfit and he would
Speaker 1: put that outfit on and he would do the Michael
Speaker 1: Jackson's Billy Jean and then he would do the moonwalk
Speaker 1: or he he had that that dance and that song
Speaker 1: down tech. You would you think he was Michael Jackson.
Speaker 1: I mean, he just was um Or is a loving, funny, precocious,
Speaker 1: curious kid and an adult that to this wonderful man.
Speaker 1: Brian's first child, Brian Jr. Was born. When Brian was
Speaker 1: twenty years old. I used to take him out to
Speaker 1: the park when once River Drive and we would go
Speaker 1: to this old big shop and body steal bread and
Speaker 1: I would take him out there and we will see geese.
Speaker 1: And that was like one of the most beautiful things,
Speaker 1: just to see his mind expand at an early age.
Speaker 1: You know, being around him, it changed me as a man.
Speaker 1: Brian's daughter, Brianna, also brought some surprising changes to his life.
Speaker 1: He would do his daughter's hair and I never knew
Speaker 1: a man to do a little girl's hair, and he
Speaker 1: would fix her hair and it was neat. Tam Or says,
Speaker 1: Brian was a great dad, channeling the love and support
Speaker 1: his family gave to him onto his children. My brother
Speaker 1: was in their life every day until this happened. Right
Speaker 1: the time Brian Jr. Brianna, and his son Cameron were born,
Speaker 1: Brian was ready to have a career to support his family.
Speaker 1: He had a dream of opening an automotive shop because
Speaker 1: he always loved cars. He even had his own hot rod,
Speaker 1: so he enrolled at Lincoln Technical Institute to pursue a
Speaker 1: career in automotive mechanics. Things for the young dad and
Speaker 1: future mechanic were going great, that is until September two.
Speaker 1: Brian was at school that morning. That morning was one
Speaker 1: of the most hands down craziest mornings of my life.
Speaker 1: Were setting up in the in the lab. We was
Speaker 1: inside the shop and we was getting ourselves together for
Speaker 1: that day and Principle comes to the door. He's like,
Speaker 1: part now, I want to see you my office real quick.
Speaker 1: And when I went in his office, there was two
Speaker 1: guys in there, and once I came in, they shut
Speaker 1: the door, and it's like four or five cops started
Speaker 1: walking up on the door outside the door, and they
Speaker 1: started telling me, hey, Mr Partner, we gotta gotta matter
Speaker 1: with you, involving a homicide. And I said what, because
Speaker 1: I'm I've never been in that type of life, you know,
Speaker 1: chilling anybody carrying guns or anything like that. I don't
Speaker 1: get down like that. But when they turned around and
Speaker 1: said to me, yeah, we have your DNA and we
Speaker 1: got your fingerprints at a prime. See you joked this
Speaker 1: guy from What's just I said, wait a minute, you
Speaker 1: got the wrong guy. Brian denied any knowledge of the
Speaker 1: crime or any connection to Gus. Brian explained how he
Speaker 1: had only been to the town Gus lived in twice
Speaker 1: in his life. He was cooperative with police. You know,
Speaker 1: whatever you wanna do. I want to give my hair
Speaker 1: and my samples up for DNA testing. I offered all
Speaker 1: of that from the gate that approved minuses. I'm gonna
Speaker 1: give it to you. Despite his efforts to prove his innocence,
Speaker 1: Brian was arrested and charged with the murder of Gus
Speaker 1: Bullius and to understand why we have to go back
Speaker 1: four years to the night of the murder. Almost exactly
Speaker 1: four years earlier, Gus Bullius arrived home after closing his
Speaker 1: pizza shop at around two forty am. Gus, his wife,
Speaker 1: woke up to the sound of voices in the hallway,
Speaker 1: allowed bang, the thought of someone falling, footsteps running out
Speaker 1: the house, and the screen door slamming shut. She ran
Speaker 1: out of her room, where she found Gus lying on
Speaker 1: the floor. She and their two children tried to help him,
Speaker 1: but it was futile. Gus died on the way to
Speaker 1: the hospital. Detectives Gregory Stone and Kenneth Beam were assigned
Speaker 1: to the case. After inspecting the crime scene, they quickly
Speaker 1: concluded that this was not a random attack but quote
Speaker 1: a robbery gone wrong, although no money or property was
Speaker 1: taken from home. At the same time, twenty miles away
Speaker 1: from the Bullius home, about forty five minutes away by car,
Speaker 1: Brian was in West Philadelphia at his girlfriend Lakisha's house
Speaker 1: with Lakisha, her sister Jovita, and Brian's cousin Maurice. According
Speaker 1: to Maurice, they were all spending the night. If nobody
Speaker 1: else on this planet knows. I know that he was
Speaker 1: with me that entire night until the next morning. Brian
Speaker 1: had an alibi witness. Brian was with his girlfriend at
Speaker 1: the time, the mother of his child. This is Mark Howard.
Speaker 1: I'm a professor of Government in Law at Georgetown. I'm
Speaker 1: also the director of the Prisons and Justice Initiative, and
Speaker 1: I co teach a class informally called Making an Axonoree
Speaker 1: with my childhood friend Marty Tankliffe, who was himself an
Speaker 1: Axonoree of course, and we have our students reinvestigate possible
Speaker 1: wrongful conviction cases and if they feel strongly about it,
Speaker 1: to advocate for the persons in a sense and exoneration.
Speaker 1: The Making an Exonery program created a partnership with Discovery,
Speaker 1: who carefully reviewed Brian's case and concluded that Brian Parnell
Speaker 1: did not kill Gus Boullius. Brian did not know the victim.
Speaker 1: Brian did not know that part of town. He'd only
Speaker 1: been there a couple of times in his entire life.
Speaker 1: It was not an area that he frequented. He had
Speaker 1: zero connection to the victim. He'd never been to the
Speaker 1: pizza shops Brian had zero connection to any of that,
Speaker 1: so then why did the police home in on Brian.
Speaker 1: At the crime scene, Detective Stone and Beam collected DNA,
Speaker 1: a sliced window screen in the dining room, hair samples,
Speaker 1: and several partial fingerprints from the window sill, ledge, and screen,
Speaker 1: and those fingerprints are what would later lead the police
Speaker 1: to Brian Parnell. This episode is underwritten by a i G,
Speaker 1: a leading globe insurance company. A i G is committed
Speaker 1: to corporate social responsibility and to making a positive difference
Speaker 1: in the lives of its employees and in the communities
Speaker 1: where we work and live. In light of the compelling
Speaker 1: need for pro bono legal assistance, and in recognition of
Speaker 1: a i g s commitment to criminal and social justice reform,
Speaker 1: the ai G pro Bono Program provides free legal services
Speaker 1: and other support to underrepresented communities and individuals. After police
Speaker 1: cleared the murder scene, Detective Beam took the partial fingerprints
Speaker 1: they had recovered to the Pennsylvania State Police Lab to
Speaker 1: run them through the Pennsylvania Statewide APISTS, the Automated Fingerprint
Speaker 1: Identification system. He also compared them to prints from surrounding
Speaker 1: states New Jersey, Delaware, and d C. Each state has
Speaker 1: to be queried individually. The night of the murder, Beam
Speaker 1: got a hit on one person right way, but he determined,
Speaker 1: after visually reviewing the prints that they did not match,
Speaker 1: and so he immediately eliminated this person as a suspect,
Speaker 1: and that person was never questioned, investigated, or arrested. The
Speaker 1: lead was completely ignored. Now it's time to take a
Speaker 1: step aside and talk about fingerprints because they're not a
Speaker 1: perfect science. It's an approximation. It's humans making judgments based
Speaker 1: on similarities to their naked eye. So keep that in mind.
Speaker 1: This is not science, this is really more art. Fingerprints
Speaker 1: have to be compared manually by experts. Detective Beam was
Speaker 1: actually considered the best fingerprint guy in Chester County after
Speaker 1: just a few FBI training courses in Latin print testing.
Speaker 1: He didn't have an academic or doctorate degree in forensics,
Speaker 1: and Beam was the sole person left to determine who
Speaker 1: these prints belonged to. And again, if prints were partial fingerprints, okay,
Speaker 1: so they weren't even full pringer prints, they're not good
Speaker 1: material to make a strong match. Even if you do
Speaker 1: have a full print. Fingerprinting has been more or less
Speaker 1: debunked as junk science in the world of justice. Similar
Speaker 1: to teeth, impressions and fiber comparisons, and fingerprints have been
Speaker 1: accepted as evidence in courts for over one years and
Speaker 1: people assume that it's reliable. This is Mary Moriarty, chief
Speaker 1: public defender in Hennepin County, Minnesota. She's talking to Wrongful
Speaker 1: Conviction junk Science host Josh Dubin. You are first looking
Speaker 1: at a fragment of the print, and it is totally
Speaker 1: within the subjectivity, the subjective discretion of a fingerprint analysis
Speaker 1: or examiner to decide whether there is enough information on
Speaker 1: that print to even go ahead and compare it. So
Speaker 1: just think about that. It is completely subjective. The Pennsylvania
Speaker 1: State Police search for the person who matched the partial
Speaker 1: prince for over a year. They then concluded the person
Speaker 1: whose prince they matched was not in their system, and
Speaker 1: they registered the prince to the Unsolved Latent print database.
Speaker 1: Now here's the thing. Brian's Prince had been in their
Speaker 1: system at the time of the murder. He was actually
Speaker 1: arrested in the past on an unrelated minor charge. Yet
Speaker 1: when they searched for matching prince, Brian's did not come
Speaker 1: up as a candidate or match. But despite that, Brian
Speaker 1: was arrested for the murder. It came completely out of
Speaker 1: nowhere because it was four years after the crime had
Speaker 1: taken place. Detective Beam was determined to close the case.
Speaker 1: It seems Detective Beam still had the Gus Boullius murder
Speaker 1: on his mind. At some point, four years after the crime,
Speaker 1: at a conference in Miami with the FBI, the detective
Speaker 1: brings these prints and then asked the FBI to look
Speaker 1: at them in a database, and it comes up potentially
Speaker 1: being similar to twenty four people. One of those people
Speaker 1: is Brian Parnell. Brian's prince eventually popped up four years
Speaker 1: later as a potential match among dozens of others when
Speaker 1: the FBI random through their National Integrated Automated Identification System
Speaker 1: i APHIST database. But we're talking about a very weak,
Speaker 1: partial fingerprint that one person who was hell bent on
Speaker 1: solving this crime, who had a tremendous amount of pressure
Speaker 1: on him to find somebody, decided this is the guy,
Speaker 1: and Detective Beam just fixates on Brian Parnell from that
Speaker 1: point forward, doesn't even look at the other twenty three
Speaker 1: despite testing the hair and DNA found at the scene
Speaker 1: of the crime, neither of which showed up as a
Speaker 1: match for Brian. He was arrested, and I think when
Speaker 1: he found Brian it seemed venient, even though obviously Brian
Speaker 1: had no motive, didn't know the victim, didn't really go
Speaker 1: in that area, but he was close enough. I think
Speaker 1: the fact that Brian's African American likely played a role.
Speaker 1: The fact that Brian had a previous criminal record, all
Speaker 1: the very minor one. I want to emphasize, no violent crimes,
Speaker 1: nothing whatsoever, just some a couple minor offenses, and most
Speaker 1: of them have been dismissed. But I think that was
Speaker 1: convenient for the detective to say, you know what, let's
Speaker 1: just close the case. Let's get this guy. I'm going
Speaker 1: to declare the match. He's gonna get convicted and be
Speaker 1: done with it. The prosecutor at trial was First Assistant
Speaker 1: District Attorney Patrick Carmody. At trial, the fact that the
Speaker 1: DNA and hair samples did not match Brian was a
Speaker 1: hurdle for him. So they suddenly developed with this as
Speaker 1: very common as you know in wrongful conviction cases. Oh well,
Speaker 1: then there must have been a second perpetrator, although there
Speaker 1: was no effort to ever find the second perpetrator. The
Speaker 1: prosecution had no murder weapon, no witnesses, no motive, and
Speaker 1: no connection between Brian and Gus Boullius. Brian was also
Speaker 1: forty minutes away. The partial fingerprint was the only evidence
Speaker 1: used against Brian. In fact, during police interviews with Gus's friends, family,
Speaker 1: and colleagues, they gave the names of multiple people who
Speaker 1: actually could have committed the crime. The victim's wife thought
Speaker 1: that the person knew him and came through the front door.
Speaker 1: There were a lot of people with motive, with opportunity,
Speaker 1: people who had talked about killing the victim, people who
Speaker 1: had grudges against the victim, people who thought the victim
Speaker 1: has stolen money from them. In fact, according to police
Speaker 1: reports and interviews, on the day before his murder, Gus
Speaker 1: told his business partner that he had become aware that
Speaker 1: a couple of his employees were discussing breaking into his
Speaker 1: home to rob him. At the time of the murder,
Speaker 1: there was nearly fifty thousand dollars in cash hidden in
Speaker 1: the rafters of Gus' home office in his basement, and
Speaker 1: his colleagues knew about that money and the lead detective
Speaker 1: kind of beam for some reason, was fixated on two
Speaker 1: partial fingerprints on the screen of a window coming into
Speaker 1: the house and decided that only the person who matched
Speaker 1: those fingerprints would have committed the crime, and therefore he
Speaker 1: rejected all these people who were obvious suspects and didn't
Speaker 1: investigate them because he decided their fingerprints didn't match. And
Speaker 1: Prosecutor Carmody ran with this. He was determined to get
Speaker 1: a conviction after all this time, which allegedly included bribing
Speaker 1: Brian's alibi witnesses. Here's Brian's ex girlfriend, Lakeisha, one of
Speaker 1: the people he was with that night, talking to someone
Speaker 1: from Brian's team. The d A or whoever he wasn't
Speaker 1: asked me all the questions, and the police officers were
Speaker 1: bullying me. Basically, um, they told me that they would
Speaker 1: offer me start eight thousand dollars to say that Brian
Speaker 1: did it, house and witness protection, and then I declined,
Speaker 1: and then they basically told me if I didn't cooperate
Speaker 1: and do what they wanted to do, they would take
Speaker 1: away my children. Now you might be wondering what about
Speaker 1: Brian's defense and alibi. Brian's parents were lucky enough to
Speaker 1: be able to hire private attorneys. His defense team were
Speaker 1: lawyers Ronald Joseph Tarik, Kareem al Shabaz, and Gerald Aston,
Speaker 1: and they came highly recommended to Brian by another incarcerated person.
Speaker 1: But quickly Brian realized they were not going to help
Speaker 1: him to the extent that he needed. And I said,
Speaker 1: I want you to talk to my family, my entire family,
Speaker 1: And they didn't do none of that. He said, I
Speaker 1: called nobody answered. Defense said, that's not true, because they
Speaker 1: call you. And they tried to say, oh, I didn't
Speaker 1: get the call from your family. That's not true. They
Speaker 1: told Brian they were dropping his alibi defense and that
Speaker 1: meant both alibis, because Brian also had a physical inability
Speaker 1: to commit this murder the way the police and prosecution
Speaker 1: said it went down. Police insisted the killer came through
Speaker 1: the window, but Brian he was on crutches at the
Speaker 1: time of the murder, at least a week before the incident,
Speaker 1: and after the incident. Here's Mark again, and there's no
Speaker 1: way he would have been able to climb through a
Speaker 1: window when he was on crutches and couldn't walk. I mean,
Speaker 1: it just defies credulity. But his defense did not bring
Speaker 1: up his injury or call his alibi witnesses. They did
Speaker 1: not question the validity of the fingerprints or call their
Speaker 1: own experts, and alternate suspects were also not presented. So
Speaker 1: I had to ask Brian, how did that feel? It hurts,
Speaker 1: And to be real with you, I said to myself,
Speaker 1: they're railroading. This is a railroad job, and it's a
Speaker 1: sloppy railroad job. Is blatant. I'm sorry, it's emotional. I'm
Speaker 1: sorry if my voice is breaking up, but it hurts.
Speaker 1: In First District Attorney Carmendies closing statement, he said, quote,
Speaker 1: I want to thank Mr Parnell for not wearing gloves
Speaker 1: that day. He gave us the evidence. The defense can't
Speaker 1: explain away the fingerprints, bottom line, and that's going to
Speaker 1: convict them, and it did. The fingerprints are what led
Speaker 1: to Brian being convicted of very weak partial fingerprint. So
Speaker 1: imagine a jury of well intentioned people who are believing
Speaker 1: law enforcement, believing the evidence coming forward in trial hearing
Speaker 1: it's a match that is completely fictitious. It's just outrageous,
Speaker 1: and the trial was an absolute farce. We're talking a
Speaker 1: murder trial with a person getting a life sentence, and
Speaker 1: it took place in under two days, and that includes
Speaker 1: the full trial and the jury deliberations. After only two
Speaker 1: hours of deliberation, Brian was convicted of second degree murder
Speaker 1: and burglary on July fifteen, two. He was sentenced to
Speaker 1: life in prison without parole. M h. First of all,
Speaker 1: it was devastation to the entire family. Here's Brian's sister
Speaker 1: Tamera again. It is if his family has been incarcerated
Speaker 1: along with him. In other words, we didn't do the crime,
Speaker 1: but we're doing the time with him. It's like a
Speaker 1: gaping hole. You know, the person still exists, but you
Speaker 1: can't have regular contact or interaction with them that you
Speaker 1: normally would have on a day to day basis. It's
Speaker 1: horrible because you have to try to function as a
Speaker 1: family unit as if they're there, but they're not there.
Speaker 1: And especially when you know they've not done something, or
Speaker 1: they've been incarcerated for something they did not do, that
Speaker 1: even hurts even more. And she says Brian's incarceration deeply
Speaker 1: affected his children, who were so young at the time
Speaker 1: they had a hard time grasping in the beginning that
Speaker 1: he was away in jail with bars and guards, in
Speaker 1: a in a place an institution where we don't have
Speaker 1: any control over him coming out because they didn't understand.
Speaker 1: They wanted him to come with them when we would
Speaker 1: go visit at the prison. They wanted him to play
Speaker 1: with him. They're like, parents can't play with their children
Speaker 1: in the in the prison system, or they have a
Speaker 1: designated area for the playroom for children, but the incarcerated
Speaker 1: people can't go in that room. And it's hard for
Speaker 1: a five year old or an eight year old to
Speaker 1: understand that. It was also hard for their mother to
Speaker 1: understand that. My mom in the beginning, she engulfed herself
Speaker 1: with this case, Like her dining room table used to
Speaker 1: stay full of his files and Affi David's the whole everything.
Speaker 1: She had crime scene pictures, everything, and she really studied
Speaker 1: the case a lot more than any family member. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's it's like, how do you how do you help
Speaker 1: parent wrap their mind or adjust to the fact that
Speaker 1: there's child has been incarcerated and wrongfully let alone, but
Speaker 1: for twenty one years you can't. But it also personally
Speaker 1: hurt Brian's mom because she was law enforcement and she
Speaker 1: taught her kids to cooperate and respect the law. So
Speaker 1: that's where it becomes a double betrayal for my mom
Speaker 1: because she's like my children. I raised him. I raised them,
Speaker 1: and I raised him to be truthful and honest and
Speaker 1: to cooperate with law enforcement. How how do you take
Speaker 1: in incarcerated or make someone guilty of some think and
Speaker 1: fix things to make it like it was they did
Speaker 1: the crime. So, yeah, that hurts. It's a dagger. I
Speaker 1: actually looked at law enforcement officers through the eye of
Speaker 1: my mother, and when I say, I used to have
Speaker 1: that belief that certain costs would do above and beyond.
Speaker 1: Don't get me wrong, but there were a lot of
Speaker 1: good ones out there because of my mother, and that
Speaker 1: right there is where I tried to keep it. I
Speaker 1: tried to keep the still in that realm, because, believe
Speaker 1: it or not, there are a lot of police officers
Speaker 1: that really means and do good. You have a lot
Speaker 1: of them. While in prison, Brian has enjoyed studying law
Speaker 1: and assisting others who are incarcerated with legal work. He's
Speaker 1: even helped some corrections officers with the law when they
Speaker 1: were helping their family members. Brian says when he gets
Speaker 1: out he wants to advocate for the wrongfully accused and
Speaker 1: helped change the laws that results in mass incarceration. He
Speaker 1: plans to call his organization home Front. Me and my
Speaker 1: son came up with My oldest son came up with
Speaker 1: the concept of calling it the home Front to help
Speaker 1: family members in my situation. Geared tours parents, siblings, and
Speaker 1: children most to teach them how to advocate for their
Speaker 1: family members. That's incarcerating, But at fifty years old, above all,
Speaker 1: Brian works every day to prove his innocence so he
Speaker 1: can get out and be with his growing family. I
Speaker 1: have a whole bunch of beautiful nieces and nephews, and
Speaker 1: I even have now two granddaughters and I have one
Speaker 1: on the way. Wow, how old your granddaughters? The oldest
Speaker 1: is five and the young and the youngest is too.
Speaker 1: After being incarcerated for so long, Brian says, what he's
Speaker 1: gone through is a nightmare. I wouldn't wish this one nobody, nobody,
Speaker 1: it's it's a nightmare to be accused of killing them. Man.
Speaker 1: I walked through these walls of this institution day in
Speaker 1: and day out with the conscience clear because I know
Speaker 1: I never killed nobody a day in my Life. Brian
Speaker 1: has filed multiple appeals and they've all been denied. As
Speaker 1: of two thousand five, one of Brian's attorneys, Ronald Joseph,
Speaker 1: was placed on administrative suspension and has not practiced law
Speaker 1: in Pennsylvania since. Brian is also represented by the Pennsylvania
Speaker 1: Innocence Project, which is seeking additional testing of evidence. This
Speaker 1: could result in a DNA profile that could then be
Speaker 1: uploaded to the national database, and that could be the
Speaker 1: very thing that finds who actually kills Gus Bullius. For
Speaker 1: more information on the case, go to Justice for Brian
Speaker 1: Parnell dot com and follow at Justice for Brian Parnell
Speaker 1: on Twitter. Next week on Wrongful Conviction with Maggie Freeling,
Speaker 1: Davonia Inman and Life after Exoneration, it's a lot more
Speaker 1: to it than just being free, because the prison part
Speaker 1: it was hard, but it's not harder than being thrown
Speaker 1: back into a big old ocean and you don't know
Speaker 1: what's in it or we'st there no more. Thank you
Speaker 1: for listening to Wrongful Conviction with Maggie Freeling. Please support
Speaker 1: your local innocence organizations and go to the links in
Speaker 1: our bio to see how you can help. I'd like
Speaker 1: to thank our executive producers Jason Flam and Kevin Wortis,
Speaker 1: as well as senior producer Annie Chelsea, researcher Lila row Robinson,
Speaker 1: story editor Sonya Paul, with additional production by Jeff Klaiburne
Speaker 1: and Connor Hall. Special thanks go to Mark Howard and
Speaker 1: then making an egonary program. The music in this production
Speaker 1: is by three time OSCAR nominated composer Jay Ralph. Be
Speaker 1: sure to follow us on Instagram at Wrongful Conviction, on
Speaker 1: Facebook at Wrongful Conviction Podcast, and on Twitter at Wrongful Conviction,
Speaker 1: as well as at Lava for Good. On all three platforms,
Speaker 1: you can also follow me on both Instagram and Twitter
Speaker 1: at Maggie Freeling. Wrongful Conviction with Maggie Freeling is a
Speaker 1: production of Lava for Good Podcasts in association with Signal
Speaker 1: Company Number one